NewsLine Column: Can You Handle The Truth?

As media planners become increasingly difficult to impress, James Papworth, ad marketing manager at IPC Prospector, explains why a growing number of media owners are taking a different approach to the way they commission their research.

What are the most (in) famous words ever spoken before a judge and a jury?

“Not guilty” by O.J Simpson? “You can’t handle the truth” (Jack Nicholson to Tom Cruise in A few Good Men)? or “I did not have sexual relations with that woman. Ms Lewinsky.” (OK, that case was trial by media)?

Well, from a media owner’s point of view it’s “Well he would, wouldn’t he”. The response made by Mandy Rice-Davis, in the midst of the Profumo trials (made famous in the film Scandal) after hearing that Lord Astor had denied his affair with her.

“Well you would say that wouldn’t you” is the criticism levelled at any media owner who, while trying to answer customer demand for more research, presents findings from their own studies which have the cheek to support the theory that their own media brands, are effective communication vehicles.

It is true that the average man in the street is more advertising savvy than ever, increasingly looking for the ‘catch’ in any advertising campaign. It is even more true the average media planner is also more cynical – always looking for the ‘what’s in it for them’ from every media owner presentation.

Even the most altruistic media departments – and I cite my own in this category – have to overcome the initial cynical hurdle when bringing new news to adland.

Still, there is a way out of this. Many media owners are recognising that taking a different approach to how research is commissioned can both raise the credibility of the research findings and cut down the capital cost. Put simply, many hands make light work.

Most ‘quality’ media owners realise the benefit of investing time and money in providing robust evidence that their products are a worthwhile investment of a clients’ marketing budget.

But bespoke research projects are expensive. And, unless they are done ‘big’, with associated PR, brochure, CD-rom and a warm-bottled-beer-in-a-dodgy-night-club launch event, they seldom make it onto the agency register of ‘research worthy of consideration’. Added to which, if it comes from only one media owner, well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?

Which is why the new breed of consortium research is so attractive.

In actuality consortium research is nothing new – TGI and NRS are consortium research projects which have been around for years. Oh yes! It’s a bit like that moment you realise that Rice Crispies are actually made from grains of rice. It’s not that you had ever thought they were made from anything else – you had just never thought about it at all.

Individual media have been at this consortium thing for a while too.

In the last three years The Periodical Publishers Association has produced the QRS, Absorbing Media and the new semiotic study Creative Format: Premium Impact.

These may all be focused on promoting the benefits and best-practice of one medium, magazines, but they are refreshingly industry-wide, unsullied by individual publisher bias. And no-one moans about the waterfall of output from the RAB being biased.

Then there’s the cross-media studies. These began back in 1995 with ROAR. Channel 4, Emap, The Guardian and OMD UK joining forces to peer into the lives of 15-24 year olds. At the other end of the spectrum there’s the MPG, Channel 4, Times and Classic FM’s VIPer – another semiotic exposé, this time into the attitudes of older ABC1s.

Perhaps one of the best examples of consortium research is Media DNA. Set up about two years ago by ZenithOptimedia and now co-funded by themselves, Capital Radio, News International, Yahoo!, BSkyB and IPC Media.

In a nutshell, MediaDNA has taken the language of advertising planners and applied it to 175 media brands. Words like extrovert, playful carefree are used to identify each brand’s Image, Personality and Positioning. An ideal tool for media planners interested in stepping away from a ‘percentage-of-budget-by-media’ planning route toward a more holistic brand-matched media plan.

It is doubtful whether any of these projects would be around without the funding, support and credibility lent by all the consortium partners. More importantly, why would they want to be around if the rest of the advertising industry refused to take their findings seriously?

As cross-media consortiums become more widespread, the endemic supposition of their bias will surely reduce. And that’s a good thing.

Getting to the truth is the most important point here. If it takes one media owner or 10 to make that truth believable, then so be it. And unlike Tom Cruise, I’m sure we can handle it.

If you would like to respond or make further comment on this or any other NewsLine article, please email [email protected].

Subscribers can access previous articles by NewsLine columnists in the Columnist Archive – click button on left.